Smt Nilima Satoskar., Panaji V. Dy.Comm. Of Income Tax,Cent . Circle, Panaji

CO 4/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8798 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHA DESAI; K SURESH BABU
• Assessee Lawyers: SRINIVAS NAYAK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset; Business income; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Revised return
• Section: 44AD; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 : (ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI (APPELLANT) VS SMT NILIMA G SATOSKAR, 12/T3, KAMAT CLASSICS IV, NEAR MODEL HARMONY CARANZALEM, PANAJI - GOA PAN : AVOPS4431J ( RESPONDENT) CO. NO. 04/PNJ/2013 (IN ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2013) (ASST. YEAR 2007 - 08) SMT NILIMA G SATOSKAR, 12/T3, KAMAT CLASSICS IV, NEAR MODEL HARMONY CARANZALEM, PANAJI - GOA PAN : AVOPS4431J ( CROSS OBJECTOR) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SMT ASHA DESAI & SHRI K SURESH BABU (DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SRINIVAS NAYAK (CA) DATE OF HEARING : 28/02/2013 DATE OF ORDER : 28 / 6 /2013 O R D E R PER D. T. GARASIA JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT (APPEALS) - IV BANGALORE DATED 03.09.2012. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO 97/PNJ/2012 IS AS UNDER: - 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,06,60,960/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS OF TALEIGAON PROPERTY. 2 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: - THE ASSESSEE IS A INDIVIDUAL HAVING INCOME FROM SALARIES AND CONTRACT BUSINESS INCOME DECLARED U/S 44AD OF I.T. ACT 1961. A SEARCHED WAS CARRIED OUT U/S 152 O N 17/11/2009 IN THE CASE OF SURESH V PARULEKAR AND HIS GROUP OF CASES INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) ON 01/11/2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 722290/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT THE RESIDENCE OF SURESH V PARULEKAR COPY OF THE EMAIL WRITTEN MR. HARISH JAIN TO SURESH PARULEKAR WAS FOUND. MR. HARISH JAIN IS FAMILY FRIEND OF PROMOTERS OF M/S EMAAR MGF LAND PVT. LTD AND ALSO OF MR. SURESH PARULEKAR. THE COPY OF THE EMAIL WAS ALSO FOUND FROM THE LAPTOP OF SHRI SATISH PAI PANANDIKAR WHO IS ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT OF M/S EMAAR MGF LAND PVT. LTD, GOA. THE EMAIL WHICH READS AS UNDER: - I GOT A PHONE CALL FROM YOU YESTERDAY BUT I COULD NOT TAKE IT BECAUSE MY I PHONE WAS NOT WITH ME. THERE ARE A FEW POINT S WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR NOTICE, 1. I AM A FAMILY FRIEND OF THE GUPTAS. IT IS THEIR COMPANY AND THEY RUN IT THEY SOMETIMES TAKE MY ADVICE. YOU ARE THE SOLE PROPRIETOR OF YOUR COMPANY. ANY DEALING OF MINE WITH YOU IN GOA HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COMPANY AS MY DEALING WITH MY FRIEND MR. SURESH PARULEKAR. 2. WE HAD ENTERED THIS AGREEMENT AND AS PER THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO THEM IT WAS UNCONDITIONAL AND EVEN THE PAYMENT DATES WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY YOU HAD BEEN PASSED ON TO THEM. NOWHERE NO THE PAYMENTS ANY CONDITIONS PUT, ONLY DATES. HENCE I WOULD LIKE TO INVOLVE WITH YOU IN A MANNER THAT WE TRY AND CLEAR UP ALL THE MATTERS IN A WAY WHICH IS BEST FOR YOU AND IS ALSO ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMPANY, THE AUDITORS AND THE PARTNERS IN DUBA I. 3. THE OVERALL FACTS ARE AS UNDER: A) BOUGHT PROPERTY AT TALEGAO (FOR MALL C - 2) FOR APPROX 20 CR%, PAID FOR. B) 132OOO SQ. METERS FOR APPROX 10 CR,, PAID FOR, DELIVERY NOT RECEIVED. REASONS MANY. C) APPROX 9 CR. RECEIVED FOR PROPERTY. REGISTRIES NOT DONE, DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS. 3 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) YOU WILL HAVE TO SEE THE 2 UNREGISTERED PROPERTIES IN A MANNER THAT WE CAN CLEAR UP ALL THE PENDING MATTERS AS WELL AS THE CHEQUES OF 4 CR. AND 4 CR RECEIVED BY YOU INCLUDING DRAFT AMOUNTS. PLEASE DO NOT TREAT T HE LAST PROPERTY (C) IN TWO NAMES AS THE ONLY UNFINISHED JOB BUT ALL OF THEM THAT YOU CAN DO AND CLEAR UP ALL THE MATTERS. ONCE YOU HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE WHOLE THING, THERE WILL BE VARIOUS WAYS THAT WE CAN TRY AND SETTLE THE MATTERS & RETRIEVE THE BEST SITUA TION. I AM SENDING THIS EMAIL SO THAT ONCE YOU SEE IT AND WORK OUT THE POSSIBILITIES THEN EVERYTHING CAN BE DONE. THANKING YOU, WITH KIND REGARDS, HARISH JAIN ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF A VIEW ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HARISH JAIN FAIL TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE AND REALISTIC RECONCILIATION OF FIGURES MENTIONED IN THE EMAIL. THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION IS MERELY A PRESE NTATION AFTER TWISTING THE FACTS TO HIS CONVENIENCE. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 114660960/ - TOWARDS BAINGUINIM PROPERTY AND NOT ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE TALEIGAON PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABL E TO PROVE THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 114660960/ - WAS RECEIVED. THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME WHICH READS AS UNDER: - A) MRS NILIMA SATOSKAR D/O MR. SURESH PARULEKAR WAS THE HIGHEST BIDDER. SHE ASSIGNED HER RIGHTS IN F AVOUR OF M/S SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT. LTD. B) THE SALE DEED FOR THE TALEIGAON PROPERTY NWAS COMPLETED AND THE RECORDED CONSIDERATION IS SHOWN AS ONLY RS. 7.04 CRORES. C) THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE ACTUAL PURPOSE OF THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS GIVE N BY M/S SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT. LTD: MRS. NILIMA SATOSKAR RS. 1,06,60,960/ - M/S REIS MAGOS ESTATES PVT. LTD RS. 3,80,00,000/ - M/S ALPHA IMPEX PVT. LTD RS. 6,60,00,000/ - RS. 11,46,60,960/ - =============== 4 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DIREC TLY CORRELATE VERY PURPOSE OF THIS AMOUNT IN BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PERSON MENTIONED ABOVE THEREFORE HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 10660960/ - IN THE HANDS OF MRS NILIMA SATOSKAR AND RS. 6,60,00,000/ - IN HANDS OF M/S ALPHA IMPEX PVT. LTD. MATTER CARRIED TO CI T (A) AND CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 1. FROM THE FACTS DISCUSSION ABOVE THE E - MAIL SENT BY MR. HARISH JAIN DT: 10.11.2008 SEIZED AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THE E - MAIL SENT BY MR. HARISH JAIN TO MR. SURESH PARULEKAR. NOWHERE, IN THE SAID E - MAIL THERE IS ANY MENTION OF THE APPELLANT OR ANY AMOUNTS PAID TO THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN MENTIONED. THE ONLY OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE AO TO MAKE A CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT RECEIVED RS. 6,60,00,000/ - IS THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DT: 23.01.2010 SENT BY SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT. LTD., WHICH IS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRADICTING IN NATURE. THE AO IN POINT F OF PAGE NO. 17, HAS STATED THAT TILL THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHITIJ BUILDCORN PVT LTD., REGARDIN G THE LEDGER EXTRACTS OF TRANSACTIONS OF TALIEGOA AND BAIGUININI PROPERTY. THERE ARE NO SEPARATE EVIDENCES FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL REGARDING THE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS THE CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO C - 2 LAND. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE AR O F THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS REGARDING THE PROPERTY TALIEGAO AND BAINGUININ. FURTHER, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS MADE A SUBMISSION POINTING OUT THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER DT: 23.01.2010 FROM THE SHITIJ BU ILDCON PVT. LTD., DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS NOTED THAT THE AR HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT AS MENTIONED IN ADDL. GROUND NO. 2. THE APPELLANT AND M/S. REIS MARGOES PVT . LTD,, WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY AT TALEIGOA. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MAPUSA URBAN CO - OPERATIVE BANK HAD AUCTIONED TALIEGOA PROPERTY FOR WHICH MRS. NILIMA SAATOSKAR WAS ONE OF THE BIDDER ALONG WITH SHITIJ BUILDCORN PVT. LTD. TO WITHDRAW THE TENDER SHITIJ BUILDCORN PVT. LTD., HAS PAID 5 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) MRS. NILIMA SAATOSKAR RS. 23,00,000/ - WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY DECLARED AS INCOME HER RETURN FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09. THE APPELLANT HAD NO ROLE IN THIS TRANSACTION NOR I T HAS RECEIVED ANY MONEY W.R.T TALIEGOA PROPERTY. THE ONLY EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY AO WAS THE E - MAIL SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF MR. HARISH JAIN, WHICH DOES NOT MENTIONED ANY AMOUNTS PAID TO THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SUBM ISSIONS FURNISHED BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT AND THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT WITH RESPECT TO A CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED BY SHITIJ BUILDCORN PVT. LTD., DT: 23.01.2010. THE PROPERTY WAS DIRECTLY ACQUIRED BY SHITIJ BUILDCORN PVT LTD., AS THE HIGHEST BIDDER . THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED BETWEEN MAPUSA URBAN CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT. LTD., FOR RS. 7,04,00,000/ - . NEITHER THE APPELLANT NOR M/S. REIS MAGOAS ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., AND ALPHA IMPEX PVT. LTD., WERE PARTIES TO THE SALE DEED. THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THIS FACT AND THE SEIZED MATERIAL RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE PROPERTY NEVER BELONG TO THE APPELLANT IN THE CAPACITY OF SELLER OR THE CONFIRMING PA RTIES. IN THE ABSENCE, OF THE ANY CLAIM ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER GROUP COMPANIES ON THE TALIEGOA PROPERTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,46,50,960/ - WAS PAID AS A SALE CONSIDJGXATIJOJI TOWARDS TALEIGO A PROPERTY. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTION RELATED TO BAINGUINI PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS AND RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS GIVEN BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT IT HAS NOT REBUTTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE AR OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING BAINGUINI PROPERTY. THE DETAILS REGARDING BAINGUINI PROPERTY IS AS FOLLOWS: 2. MRS. NIRUPA PAWAR WAS THE HIGHEST BUILDER FOR BAINGUINI PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY WAS ALLOTTED TO HER BY GOA STATE CO - OPERATIVE BANK FOR RS. 2,66,52,400/ - OF WHICH RS. 1,99,89,3007 - WAS PAID BY EMAAR MGF PVT LTD., DIRECTLY INTO THE ACCOUNT OF GOA STATE CO - OPERATIVE BANK BALANCE OF RS. 66,63,100/ - WAS BY THE APPELLANT, 6 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) 3. THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN GOA STATE CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND MRS. NIRUPA PAWAR. 4. MRS. NIRUPA PAWAR HAS AGREED TO SELL THE SAID PROPERTY FOR RS. 9 CRORES AND HAS COLLECTED RS. 9,23,89,300/ - WHICH INCLUDES STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES. 5. THE AR HAS GIVE N THE COMPLETE RECONCILIATION AND BIFURCATION FOR THE SAID RECEIPT OF RS. 9,23,89,300/ - THIS FACT IS CORROBORATED FROM SECOND LINE OF E - MAIL OF MR, HARISH JAIN WHICH SAYS 'PAID FOR RS, 10 CRORE FOR BAINGUINI PROPERTY' AND ALSO STATEMENT ON OATH RECORDED U/ S. 131 ON 17.11,2009 OF PAGE NO, 10 IN ANSWER TO Q. NO, 11 BY SRI. SURESH PARULEKAR MD OF THE APPELLANT. 6. ON PAGE NO. 17 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS TALIEGOA PROPERTY INCLUDES THE CONVERSION CHARGES OF TH E AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY TO C - 2. 7. FURTHER, IN POINT F OF PAGE NO. 17, HAS STATED THAT TILL THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM SHITIJ BUILDCORN PVT. LTD., REGARDING THE LEDGER EXTRACTS OF TRANSACTIONS OF TALIEGOA AND BAIGUININI PROPERTY. THERE ARE NO SEPARATE EVIDENCES FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL REGARDING THE AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS THE CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO C - 2 LAND. THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF LANDS AT TALIEGOA AND BAIGUININI PROPERTY. IN THE FACTS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IT IS CLEAR THAT RS. 11,89,89,3007 - IS ADVA NCE RECEIVED TOWARDS THE SALE OF BAIGUININI PROPERTY OUT OF WHICH RS. 2,66,00,000/ - HAS BEEN REFUNDED. FURTHER, THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SALE DEED REGARDING TALIEGOA PROPERTY IS EXECUTED DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE MAPSUA URBAN CO - OPERATIVE BANK A ND SHITIJ BUILDCORN PVT. LTD., AND ASSESSEE WAS NEVER A PARTY IN THIS TRANSACTION, 7 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AS THERE ARE NO MATERIAL EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE TIME OF SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF MR. HARISH JAIN AND MR. SURESH PARULEKAR TO PROVE THAT APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED ANY MONEY PERTAINING TO TALIEGOA PROPERTY, AS SUCH THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS. 1,06,60,9607 - IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y. 2007 - 08. THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE ADDITIONS UNDER SEARCH ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE ONLY WITH REGARD TO AS SUCH AS CASH, JEWELLERY, UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AND NO ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. A. IN CASE OF K.P, VARGHESE (131 ITR 597 SC) WAS HELD WHEN THERE IS NO MATERIAL FOUND ADDITION ON SURMISES, IS UNJUSTIFIED IN A SEARCH ASSESSMENTS. B. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHAILESH SHAH (63 ITD 153 BOM) IT WAS HELD THAT ADDITION BASED ON SUSPICION CA NNOT BE SUSTAINED, C. IN THE CASE OF SRI. R. M. BHAGWAN DAS RAHEJA VS. ACIT (IT (SS) A.NO.LL8/MUM/96) IT WAS HELD THAT THE VAGUE INFORMATION FOUND IN SEARCH CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THE AO CAN MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, SUCH ASSESSMENTS CANNOT BE ARBITRARY. THOUGHT, GUESS WORK MAY BE THERE GET IT MUST BE BASED ON MATERIAL ON RECORD AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT IN VARIOUS CASES. REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES. I. STATE OF ORRISA VS. MAHARAJA SHRI. B.P. SINGH DEO (76 ITR 690 SC) 'THE NEAR FACT THAT THE MATERIAL BASED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES IS UNRELIABLE DOES NOT EMPOWER THOSE AUTHORITIES TO MAKE AN ARBITRARY ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT ASSESSMENT MUST BE BASED ON SOME RELEVANT MATERIAL'. II. THE SCOPE OF POWER OF ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED OVER AND OVER AGAIN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAKSHMINARAYAN BAD RI DAS (5 ITR 170 PC) COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT 'HE (THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY) MUST NOT ACT DISHONESTLY, OR VINDICTIVELY OR CAPRICIOUSLY BECAUSE HE MUST EXERCISE JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER, HE MUST MAY WHAT HE HONESTLY BELIEVES TO BE A 8 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE PROPER FIGURE OF ASSESSMENT, AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE MUST, THEIR LORDSHIP THINK, BE ABLE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND REPUTE IN REGARD TO THE ASSESSEE'S CIRCUMSTANCES, AND HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE OF PREVIOUS RETURNS BY AND ASSESSMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE , AND ALL OTHER MATTERS WHICH HE THINKS WILL ASSIST HIM ARRIVING AT A FAIR AND PROPER ESTIMATE.,,,...' III. A SEARCH PROVISIONS ARE INVOKE TO UNEARTH THE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE PERSON SEARCH. ONCE, SUCH EXERCISE IS CARRIED OUT COULD BE WRONG TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE ENTERED INTO MORE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS OTHER THAN THE ONE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNLESS THE MATERIAL FOUND INDICATE OTHERWISE. IN SEARCH CASES, IN MY OPINION, NOTHING CAN BE PRESUME AGAINST THE AS SESSEE UNLESS AND UNTIL THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS INDICATE OTHERWISE. IN THIS CONNECTION, REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF STATE OF KERALA VS. C. VELLUKUTTI (60 ITR 239 SC). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL NOT RELATED TO A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION UNLESS WARRANTED ON FACTS OTHERWISE LD. DR. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE AS WELL AS MR. HARISH JAIN FAILED TO RECONCILIATION OF FIGURE MENTIONED IN THE EMAIL. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 114660960/ - GIVEN FOR BAINGUINIM PROPERTY THE EVIDENCE FOUND WHICH WAS MOU DT. 02/04/2006 BETWEEN MRS NIRUPA PAWAR AND SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT. LTD WHICH WAS FOUND AND IMPOUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE SALE OF BAINGUINIM PROPERTY WHICH IS THE LAND OF 133262 SQ. METERS WAS SOLD AT CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30650260/ - THEREFORE THE AO IS JU STIFIED IN HIS ACTION AND CIT (A) HAS NO REASON TO DELETE THE ADDITION. LD. AR FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION 1. WE WERE SHOWN A CONFIRMATION LETTER DATED 23 - 01 - 2010 SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD WHEREIN THEY HAVE STATED THAT THEY HAVE SPENT RS.18,64,69,660.00 FOR T ALEIGAO PROPERTY WHICH IS PAID AS UNDER: PAYMENT MADE BY PAYMENT MADE TO AMOUNT RS. 9 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD THE MAPUSA URBAN CO - OP BANK LTD 7, 04,00,000.00 EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD REGISTRATION AND STAMP DUTY 14, 08,700.00 EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD ALPHA IMPEX PVT LTD 6.60, 00,000.00 EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD MS. NILIMA SATOSKAR 1, 06,60,960.00 EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD REIS MAGOES ESTATE PVT LTD 1, 80,00,000.00 SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD REIS MAGOES ESTATE PVT LTD 2,00,00,000.00 TOTAL 18,64,69,660.00 WE WERE ALSO SHOWN ABOVE LETTER IN WHICH PARA 2 STATES AS UNDER: THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.11,46,60,960.00 WAS PAID TO VARIOUS PARTIES FOR REMOVING VARIOUS ENCUMBRANCES AND ARE STILL OUTSTANDING AS RECOVERABLE FROM THEM. WE WERE ALSO SHOWN AN EMAIL ALLEGEDLY SENT BY MR HARISH JAIN TO MR SURESH PARULEKAR ON 10 - 11 - 2008 AT 12.28 P.M. PARA 3 OF THE SAID EMAIL ST ATES AS UNDER: A) BOUGHT PROPERTY AT TALEIGAO (FOR MALL C - 2) FOR APPROX. 20 CR, PAID FOR B) 132000 SQ MTRS FOR APPROX. 10 CR, PAID FOR DELIVERY NOT RECEIVED. REASONS MANY C) APPROX 9 CR, RECEIVED FOR PROPERTY REGISTRIES NOT DONE DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS. WE WERE ALS O SHOWN ANSWERS TO QUESTION NO; 14 OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM MR HARISH JAIN UNDER SEC 131 ON 18 - 12 - 2009 WHICH IS AS UNDER: ANS TO Q. 14: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE EMAIL. I CONFIRM THAT I HAVE WRITTEN THE E - MAIL TO SRI. SURESH V. PARULEKAR' THESE A MOUNTS OF RS 20 CRORES ARE CONNECTED TO TALEIGAO PROPERTY. THESE ARE THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE BANKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TENDER AND C - 2 PERMISSION WAS TO BE OBTAINED AND AT THIS MOMENT IT STANDS REGISTERED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND WAITING FOR CONVERSION. 10 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) RS. 10 CRORES WAS TO BE PAID FOR PROPERTY AT BAIGUINIM WHICH IS YET TO BE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF M/ S EMAAR MGF GROUP. RECEIPT OF RS 9 CRORE RELATED TO PROPERTY AT PILERNE, PORVORIM , GOA. IN LIGHT OF ALL ABOVE DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS WE ARE ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY NOT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11,46,60,960.00 PAID TO OUR COMPANIES AND MS NILIMA SATOSKAR BE BROUGHT TO TAX? IN THIS REGARD WE STATE AS UNDER: 1. SHITIJ BUILDCON LETTER DATED 1 - 2 - 2010 : THIS LETTER IS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS AND IT IS SIGNED BY ONE MR. D.K. GUPTA WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS AS HE WAS NEVER INVOLVED WITH ANY PROPERTY DEALS IN GOA FOR FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN A FIGURE OF RS. 20.00 CR WHEREAS HE HAS GIVEN DETAILS OF RS 18.64 CR 2. EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD NEVER PAID RS 1, 06, 60,960.00 TO MS NILIMA SATOSKAR THE SAME AMOUNT WAS PAID DIRECTLY TO THE GOA STATE CO - OP BANK LTD ON BEHALF OF MS. NIRUPA PAWAR . THE AMOUNT WAS NOT RS .1,06,60,690.00 BUT IT WAS RS.1,99,89,300.00 THE DETAILS ARE ENCLOSED AS PER AN NEXURE - I. 3. EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD & SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD PAID RS 4,30,00,000.00 TO REIS MAGOES ESTATE PVT LTD NOT RS 3,80,00,000.00 AS CLAIMED IN THE LETTER. DETAILS ARE ENCLOSED AS PER ANNEXURE - II. 4. EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD PAID RS 5,60,00,000.00 TO ALP HA IMPEX PVT LTD NOT RS. 6,60,00,000.00 AS CLAIMED IN THE LETTER. DETAILS AS PER ANNEXURE - III. 5. EVEN GOING BY THE SAID LETTER, IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PARA 2 OF THE SAID LETTER THAT THE AMOUNTS PAID TO OUR GROUP OF COMPANIES ARE REFUNDABLE. THE DEPARTMENT IS O F THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACTION IS 11 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) ALREADY COMPLETED NOT TENABLE, AS THE SALE DEED REFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS BETWEEN THE MAPUSA URBAN COOP BANK LTD AND SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD. THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THESE TWO PARTIES MAY BE COMPLETED WHICH IN NO WA Y CONCLUDES THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN US AND SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD IS COMPLETED. THIS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 1 - 2 - 2010. WHEREAS THE DATE OF THE SALE DEED IS 21 - 07 - 2006. 6. BY READING THE LETTER OF MR. D.K. GU PTA, WE CONCLUDE THAT THIS LETTER WAS WRITTEN WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND AND WITHOUT PROPER KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS .WE FURTHER CONCLUDE THAT, AS MR. D.K. GUPTA IS SITTING IN DELHI, AND IS NOT HAVING INVOLVED WITH THE LAND DEALS IN GOA, AND IS NOT HAVIN G PROPER GEOGRAPHICAL KNOWLEDGE OF GOA, IT APPEARS THAT HE IS CONFUSED BETWEEN BAINGUNIM AND TALEIGAO. 2. E MAIL OF MR HARISH JAIN AND ANSWER TO QUESTION NO 14 OF THE STATEMENT: 1. IN POINT 3 OF THE ABOVE SAID EMAIL, ON CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH THE EMAIL WE NO TICE AS UNDER: A) BOUGHT TALEIGAO PROPERTY FOR RS. 20 CR B) PAID FOR RS.10.00 CR FOR BAINGUINIM PROPERTY C) RECEIVED RS.9.00 CR FOR PILERNE PROPERTY IT CLEARLY IMPLIES THAT THEY BOUGHT TALEIGAO PROPERTY FOR RS. 20.00 CR WHERE AS WE ARE NEITHER PURCHASERS NOT SELL ERS OF THE PROPERTY. FOR US IT IS JUST A PIECE OF INFORMATION WHICH MR HARISH JAIN SHARED WITH MR SURESH PARULEKAR AS A FRIEND AS CLAIMED IN PARA 1 OF THE SAID EMAIL. NEITHER IN THE EMAIL NOR IN THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO 14 MR HARISH JAIN HAS ADMITTED THAT THE SAID RS. 20.00 CR WAS PAID TO US. THE ONLY THING HE HAS ADMITTED IS, HE SEND AN EMAIL TO US WHICH WE HAVE 12 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) ADMITTED IN THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION NO 17 OF STATEMENT ON OATH RECORDED ON 6 - 1 - 2010 FROM MR SURESH PARULEKAR. IN THE SAME ANSWER WE HAVE CLARI FIED THAT, WE HAD RECEIVED ONLY RS.23.00 LAKHS AS COMMISSION WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED U/S 153 A IN THE HANDS OF MS NILIMA SATOSKAR FOR A Y 2008 - 09. HENCE IT IS GROSSLY UNJUST TO CO RELATE RS.20.00 CR SPENT BY E MAAR GROUP TOWARDS THE TALEIGAO PROPERTY TO BE RELATED TO PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY US FROM EMAAR GROUP. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OUR RIGHTS AND CONTENTIONS AS STATED ABOVE FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENTS IF WE READ LINE 3 OF PARA 1 OF ANSWER NO 14 MR HARISH JAIN HAS EXP LAINED THE PAYMENTS OF RS.20.00 CR ARE CONNECTED TO TALEIGAON PROPERTY AS THESE ARE THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE' BANKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TENDER AND C - 2 PERMISSION WAS TO BE OBTAINED AND AT THIS MOMENT IT STANDS REGISTERED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND WAITING FOR CONVERSION. IT IS CLEAR THAT MR HARISH JAIN ON BEHALF OF EMAAR GROUP HAS SPENT RS. 20.00 CR ON TALEIGAO PROPERTY FOR TENDER AND C - 2 PERMISSION. FOR TENDER RS. 7.18 CR HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY PAID TO THE MAPUSA URBAN CO - OP BANK LTD. HE HAS NEVER STATED THAT THE BALANCE MONEY HAS BEEN PAID TO MR SURESH PARULEKAR ANYWHERE IN HIS STATEMENT OR EMAIL. JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT EVEN IF WE PRESUME THAT RS. 11.46 CR PAID TO US FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING C - 2 PERMIS SION WE STATE THAT: A) WE ARE NOT THE AUTHORITY FOR LAND CONVERSION B) THE LAND IS STILL AN AGRICULTURAL LAND COPY OF THE LATEST FORM I & IV. IS ENCLOSED AS PER ANNEXURE - IV. 13 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) AS WE ARE YET TO DELIVER THE GOODS FOR WHICH WE HAVE ALLEGEDLY TAKEN MONEY, THE SAID MON EY STANDS AS AN ADVANCE AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME, AN AMOUNT CAN BE TREATED AS INCOME ONLY WHEN THE GOODS ARE DELIVERED OR THE SERVICE HAS BEEN RENDERED. 3.WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OUR RIGHTS AND CONTENTIONS AS STATED ABOVE THE TIME LIMITATION OF 3 YEARS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO US AS SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD HAS CLAIMED THEIR MONEY VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 1 - 2 - 2010 REFER PARA 2. HENCE 3 YEARS LIMITATION PERIOD STARTS FROM THAT DATE. HENCE WE HEREBY REQUEST YOU TO NOT TO CO RELATE RS. 11.46 CR RECEIVED BY US TO WARDS TALEIGAO PROPERTY FOR FOLLOWING REASONS: A) FOR TALEIGAO PROPERTY WE ARE NEITHER PURCHASERS NOR SELLERS, MS NILIMA SATOSKAR WAS ONLY ONE OF THE BIDDER FOR WHICH SHE HAS ALREADY RECEIVED A COMMISSION OF RS 23.00 LAKHS. B) RS. 1,99,89,300.00 WAS DIRE CTLY DEPOSITED BY EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD IN THE GOA STATE CO - OP BANK LTD ON BEHALF OF MS NIRUPA PAWAR AS EARNEST MONEY FOR THE BIDDING OF BAINGUNIM PROPERTY. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT TALEIGAO PROPERTY WAS AUCTIONED BY THE MAPUSA URBAN CO - OP BANK LTD WH EREAS THE BAINGUNIM PROPERTY WAS AUCTIONED BY THE GOA STATE URBAN CO - OP BANK LTD. C) AGAINST THE ALLEGED RECEIPT OF RS 11.46 CR TOWARDS TALEIGAO PROPERTY WE HAVE NEITHER DELIVERED ANY GOODS NOR RENDERED ANY SERVICES AND HENCE THERE IS NO CO RELATION BETWE EN SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD AND MS NIRUPA POWAR REIS MAGOES PVT LTD AND ALPHA IMPEX PVT LTD. THE PERSON INVOLVED IN THE TALEIGOA PROPERTY WAS MS NILIMA SATOSKAR FOR WHICH SHE HAS RECEIVED A COMMISSION OF RS. 23.00 LAKHS. D) WE HAVE EXPLAINED THE AMOUNT RECE IVED A SUM OF RS 11.46 CR IN EXPLANATION TO BAINGUNIM PROPERTY DEAL. 14 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) 4. WE WERE ALSO SHOWN AN ANNEXURE TO THE CONFIRMATION LETTER OF SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD DATED 23 - 1 - 2010 WHICH SHOWS BREAK UP OF AMOUNTS PAID TO OUR GROUP COMPANIES. ON - GOING THROUGH THE S AID ANNEXURE IT IS EVIDENT THAT: A) THESE ARE LEDGER ABSTRACT OF THE COMPANY AS IT IS CAPTIONED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. B) THE AMOUNT ADVANCED ARE CLASSIFIED AS CREDITORS LEDGER AND SHOWN AS RECEIVABLES. C) THE NARRATION WRITTEN FOR THE PAYMENTS ARE B EING AMOUNT ISSUED AS ADVANCE VIDE D D D) WITHOUT OUT PREJUDICE TO OUR RIGHTS AND CONTENTION AS STATED ABOVE FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENTS IF WE PRESUME THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS WERE MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF TALEIGAO PROPERTY THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAPITALISED TO THE LAND VALUE, INSTEAD OF SHOWING AS RECEIVABLES BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING ENTRY : PARTICULARS DEBIT CREDIT STOCK TALEIGAO A/C 11,46,60,960.00 ALPHA IMPEX PVT LTD 6,60,00,000.00 REIS MAGOES ESTATE PVT LTD 3,80,00,000.00 NILIMA SATOSKAR 1,06,06,960.00 TOTAL 11,46,60,960.00 11,46,60,960.00 IT IS EVIDENT THAT ABOVE ENTRY IS NOT PASSED WHICH MEANS EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD HAS NOT TRANSFERRED THE ABOVE AMOUNTS AS INVESTMENTS IN TALIGAO PROPERTY. 15 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) ON THE OTHER HAND THE ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE MAPUSA URBAN CO - OP BANK LTD HAS BEEN CAPITALISED TO TALEIGAO PROPERTY BY PASSING FOLLOWING ENTRY: PARTICULARS DEBIT CREDIT STOCK TALEIGAO A/C 7,04,00,000.00 THE MAPUSA URBAN CO - OP BANK LTD 7,04,00,000.00 TOTAL 7,04,00,000.00 7,04,00,000.00 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS ISSUED BY EMAAR MGF LAND PVT LTD WHICH FORMS THE PART OF THE LETTER DATED 1 - 2 - 2010 IS ENCLOSED AS PER ANNEXURE V. FROM THIS IT IS EVIDENT THAT EVEN EMAAR GROUP HAS NOT APPROPRIATED THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 11.46 TOWARDS TALEIGAO PROPERTY. BAINGUNIM PROPERTY: WE WERE SHOWN THE MOU BETWEEN SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD AND MS NIRUPA PAWAR AND ASKED WHY OUR CLAIM OF RS 11 .46 CR RECEIVED BY M/S REIS MAGOES ESTATE PVT LTD, ALPHA IMPEX PVT LTD AND MS NIRUPA PAWAR BE TREATED AS CONSIDERATION FOR TALEIGAO PROPERTY. WE WERE ALSO ASKED AS TO WHY THE ALLEGED PROFIT OF RS 2,39,87,160.00 BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF MS NIRUPA P AWAR. IN THIS REGARD WE STATE AS UNDER: 1. MS. NIRUPA PAWAR SUBMITTED A BID FOR PROPERTY UNDER SURVEY NO 26/2 ADMEASURING 65000 SQ. METRES AND SURVEY NO 26/2 (PART) TOTALLY ADMEASURING 133262 SQ. METRES. 16 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) 2. SHE WAS THE HIGHEST BIDDER FOR BIDDING RS. 1,30,00,000 . 00 FOR 65000 SQ. METERS AND RS. 1,36,52,400.00 FOR 68262 SQ. METERS PLOT. THE TOTAL VALUE WAS RS.2.66,52,400.00. A LETTER FROM THE GOA STATE CO - OP BANK TO CONFIRM THIS DATED 31 - 3 - 2006 IS ENCLOSED AS PER ANNEXURE - VI. 3. IN THE SAID LETTER BANK ASKED TO DEPOS IT 25% OF THE TOTAL AUCTION VALUE I E RS. 66,63,100.00. THE SAME WAS PAID BY REIS MAGOES ESTATE PVT LTD VIDE CHEQUE NO 980953 FOR RS. 34,13,100.00 DATED 15 - 4 - 2006 CHEQUE NO 980952 FOR RS.32,50,000.00 DATED 15 - 4 - 2006 COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE GOA ST ATE CO - OP BANK LTD IS ENCLOSED AS PER ANNEXURE - VII. 4. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,99.89,300.00 WAS PAID AS UNDER: DATE NAME OF THE PAYER AMOUNT RS. 25 - 4 - 2006 SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD 1,02,39,300.00 25 - 4 - 2006 SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT LTD 97,50,000.00 TOTAL 1,99,89,300.00 COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE GOA STATE CO - OP BANK LTD IS ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE - VIII. 5. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH ON 17 - 11 - 2009 PAGE 10 IN ANSWER NO 11 MR SURESH PARULEKAR STATED THAT THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION IS RS 9.00 CR THIS STATEMENT OF MR SURESH PARULEKAR IS CORROBORATED ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: A) THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN TH E YEAR 2006 - 07 WAS CERTAINLY NOT RS 3,06,50,260.00 AS MENTIONED IN THE MOU DATED 2 - 4 - 2006 AS MR. RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA PARAB NAVELKAR AND OTHERS WHO WERE ORIGINAL OWNERS OF THE SAME PROPERTY HAVE SOLD THE SAME LAND TO ONE M/S. ANIRAVA DEVEL OPERS PVT LTD FOR 17 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) RS 17.08 CR VIDE SALE DEED DATED 19 - 9 - 2007. COPY OF THE SALE DEED IS ENCLOSED AS PER ANNEXURE - IX. B) THE SAME FACT HAS BEEN STATED IN POINT B OF PARA 3 OF EMAIL SENT BY MR HARISH JAIN ON 10 - 11 - 2008 WHEREIN MR HARISH JAIN HAS STATED THAT HE H AS PAID APPROX. RS 10.00 CR FOR BAINGUNIM PROPERTY. IF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS RS 3.06 CR THEN THERE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY EMAAR GROUP PAID RS 10.00 CR. C) IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT TALEIGAO PROPERTY WAS ONLY 37895 SQ MTRS (APPROX.) WHICH IS AN AGRIC ULTURAL LAND WITH NO VIEW, WHEREAS BAINGUNIM PROPERTY IS 1,33,262 SQ MTRS WITH COMPLETE VIEW OF MANDOVI RIVER. THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF BAINGUNIM PROPERTY IS HIGHER THAN THE TALEIGAO PROPERTY. D) IN ABSENCE OF TALEIGAO DEAL THE DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE TREATED TH E ADDITIONAL AMOUNT RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE RS. 3.06 CR AS MENTIONED IN THE MOU AS ADDITIONAL SALE CONSIDERATION USING JAINS EMAILS AND MR SURESH PARULEKAR STATEMENT AS EVIDENCE. E) WE SUBMIT THAT THE JAINS EMAIL TO BE READ IN ITS ENTIRETY AND TO BE INTERPRET ED AS IT IS WRITTEN AND NOT TO USE THE PART OF THE EMAIL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE REST OF THE CONTENTS. F) AS STATED IN THE STATEMENT ON OATH, PRESENTLY THE WHOLE DEAL IS SUB - JUDICE AND THE MATTER IS LYING IN THE COURT, THE COPY OF TH E LEGAL DOCUMENTS IN WRIT PETITION NO 498 OF 2006 IS ENCLOSED HERE WITH IN ANNEXURE - X. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT MAPUSA URBAN CO - OPERATIVE BANK HAD AUCTIONED TALEIGOA PROPERTY FOR WHICH SMT. NILIMA SATOSKAR, THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE BIDDER ALONGWITH M/S. SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT. LTD. TO WITHDRAW THE TENDER, M/S. SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT. LTD. HAS PAID THE ASSESSEE RS.23,00,000/ - WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR 18 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08) A.Y. 2008 - 09. THE ONLY EVIDENCE IS E - MAIL SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF MR. HARISH JAIN WHICH DOES NOT MENTION ANY AMOUNT PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. THE MAPUSA URBAN CO - OPERATIVE BANK HAS DIRECTLY S OLD THE PROPERTY TO M/S. SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT. LTD. AS HIGHER BIDDER. THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED BETWEEN MAPUSA URBAN CO - OPERATIVE BANK AND M/S. SHITIJ BUILDCON PVT. LTD. WE FIND THAT FOLLOWING THIS FACT, THE CIT( A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, OUR INTERFERENCE IS NOT REQUIRED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS ALSO DISMISSED AS IT IS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28 / 6 /2013. SD/ - SD/ - (P. K. BANSAL) (D. T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PANAJI / GOA DATED: - 28 / 6 / 2013 *NANU/SSL* COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT, PANAJI 4. CIT(A), PANAJI 5. D.R 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PANAJI, GOA 19 ITA NO. 97/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2007 - 08)